Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 07/24/2025. In making the below rejections, the examiner has considered and addressed each of the applicants arguments. Claim 16 have been canceled, Claims 5 and 7 are withdrawn, Claims 18-21 have been newly added and Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17-21 are currently pending and being examined.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 11-13, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (USPAP 2012/0321439) in view of Price (USPN 4,030,007).
In reference to independent claim 1, Maier teaches a centrifugal compressor (10) for a refrigeration system (It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).), comprising: a rotor shaft (16); a compressor impeller (12) connected to the rotor shaft (16); a brake component (24) on the rotor shaft (16), wherein a periphery of the brake component is made of magnetic conductive material (para 0021 discloses “disk 24 may be made of a substantially non-ferrous, conductive material such as aluminum, copper, non-magnetic stainless steel, titanium, combinations thereof, alloys thereof, or like materials” para 0024 discloses “The magnets 26a,b may be disposed proximal the disk 24, i.e., close enough to magnetically engage the disk 24 along a radial outside 52 thereof.”); a plurality of sets of electromagnets (26a and 26b) fixedly arranged at radial outward locations of the brake component (fig 2 shows the electromagnets 26a and 26b arranged radially outward of 24),
A sensor device for sensing a rotational speed of the rotor shaft and a controller connected to the sensor device, wherein the controller receives signals from the sensor device and supplies power to the plurality of set of electromagnets (para 0002 discloses “It is usually desirable to determine the characteristics of the shaft and then to monitor the shaft rotational speed to ensure that the shaft is not operating at or near a critical speed or a harmonic thereof where the shaft resonates and therefore vibrates at maximum amplitude.” Para 0032 goes onto disclose “In an exemplary embodiment, the eddy current damper 22 may be turned on when the shaft 16 is proximal to and/or traverses a critical speed” these two cites disclose a system that monitors speed and once a critical speed is achieved the controller turn on the electromagnets), however
Maier does not teach a sensor device for sensing a direction of the rotor shaft; and a controller connected to the sensor device, wherein the controller receives signals from the sensor device and supplies power to the plurality of sets of electromagnets when the rotor shaft is rotating reversely or has a reversal trend.
Price, a piece of equipment using a similar eddy current brake (col 5, lines 28-30 disclose “In the braking mode of operation (quadrants II and IV of FIG. 3), speed and torque are obviously in opposite directions. The direct current braking technique in accordance with this invention is analogous to braking by means of an eddy current brake”), teaches a sensor device (51) for sensing a direction of the rotor shaft (shaft 11 of the motor); and a controller (30) connected to the sensor device (51), wherein the controller receives signals from the sensor device (51) and supplies power to the plurality of sets of electromagnets when the rotor shaft is rotating reversely or has a reversal trend (col 9, lines 39-44 discloses “anti-rollback circuit 51 senses the polarity (i.e., direction) of the speed feedback signal from tachometer 20 and if that polarity is in the wrong direction for raising (i.e., is positive when it should, in fact, be negative to effect raising), the anti-rollback circuit 51 provides a signal at point 72”
col 14, lines 32-36 discloses “For a short period of time a larger braking command is produced to achieve slow-down, and then it will phase back and produce a smaller braking command necessary to maintain the speed of motor 10” to be clear the system uses the “direct current braking” while starting up, the load puts a downward force on the winch causing the motor to want to turn in a reverse direction in comparison to its intended direction, the system senses this and then uses powering the windings to brake the motor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the braking of Price in the compressor of Maier to provide a unit with “excellent speed regulation” col 2, line 36; Price. To be clear the sensor device and controller structure of Price are added to the compressor of Maier. Once combined the structure would perform the function as outlined by the claim.
In reference to dependent claim 2, Maier in view of Price teaches the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, Maier further teaches a centrifugal compressor wherein the plurality of sets of electromagnets (26a and 26b, fig 2) each exert a braking force on the brake component of the rotor shaft to suppress reverse rotation of the rotor shaft when energized (para 0031 discloses “When the magnetic assembly 26 engages the disk 24, any of these movements create eddy currents E in a plane normal to the movement. The eddy currents E create a second magnetic field, which opposes the movement of the disk 24 in any direction. The magnitude of such opposing force is proportional to the velocity of the movement of the disk 24. Accordingly, when the eddy currents E are produced in reaction to radial or axial vibration, the resistive forces created by the eddy currents E reduces shaft 16 motion through the dissipation of kinetic energy.”), and a resultant force of attractive forces exerted by the plurality of sets of electromagnets on the brake component of the rotor shaft is upward, wherein (para 0033 discloses “the eddy current damper 22 may be turned on just prior to the drop, thereby transferring at least some of the force of the dropping shaft 16 [the force of the dropping shaft is the weight of the rotor] to the support structure (not shown) of the eddy current damper 22, allowing the eddy current damper 22 to act as a shock-absorber for the auxiliary bearing 20”), however
Maier, Park, and Dunbar are silent to the resultant force of the attractive forces exerted by the plurality of sets of electromagnets is 10%-80% of the gravity of the rotor shaft.
Maier discloses a system wherein the force of the electromagnets 26a and 26b can be used to counteract weight of the rotor. If the electromagnets on either side of the rotor are equal, the resultant force from the electromagnets would be equal and the rotor would fall due to its own weight in a drop event. Maier discloses a system wherein the top electromagnet must stronger in order to counter act the weight of the rotor. If the top electromagnet is too strong the resultant force would result in the rotor either not falling at all and remaining stationary or actually going up and hitting the rotor on the top side. The resultant force of the two electromagnets must counter act a portion but not all of the weight of the rotor. Therefore Maier discloses linking the power of the electromagnets to the weight of the rotor.
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the power of the magnets taught by Maier in view of Price because the power of the magnets was recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a particular offset force to counteract the gravity of the rotor and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the power of the magnets to achieve a desired level of support for the rotor.
In reference to dependent claim 3, Maier in view of Price teaches the centrifugal compressor according to claim 2, Maier further teaches a centrifugal compressor (10, fig 1) wherein the plurality of sets of electromagnets (26a and 26b, fig 2) achieving an upward resultant force of the attractive forces exerted by the plurality of sets of electromagnets (para 0033 discloses “the eddy current damper 22 may be turned on just prior to the drop, thereby transferring at least some of the force of the dropping shaft 16 [the force of the dropping shaft is the weight of the rotor] to the support structure (not shown) of the eddy current damper 22, allowing the eddy current damper 22 to act as a shock-absorber for the auxiliary bearing 20” the two electromagnets must have an upward resultant force in order to counteract the drop of the rotor, if the resultant force is not upward the electromagnets would cancel each other out and the electromagnets would not aid in a drop event), however
Maier and Price are silent to the plurality of sets of electromagnets have different number of turns and/or different supply voltages.
Maier discloses a system wherein the force of the electromagnets 26a and 26b can be used to counteract weight of the rotor. If the electromagnets on either side of the rotor are equal, the resultant force from the electromagnets would be equal and the rotor would fall due to its own weight in a drop event. Maier discloses a system wherein the top electromagnet must stronger in order to counter act the weight of the rotor. If the top electromagnet is too strong the resultant force would result in the rotor either not falling at all and remaining stationary or actually going up and hitting the rotor on the top side. The resultant force of the two electromagnets must counter act a portion but not all of the weight of the rotor. Therefore Maier discloses linking the power of the electromagnets to the weight of the rotor.
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the power of the magnets taught by Maier in view of Price because the power of the magnets was recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a particular offset force to counteract the gravity of the rotor and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the power of the magnets (either by different number of turns or different supply voltages) to achieve a desired level of support for the rotor. To be clear the second electromagnet (26a, fig 2 Maier) must be stronger than the first magnet because if it is not the electromagnets cancel each other out and the rotor falls, which is not what Maier discloses. Maier discloses above “transferring at least some of the force of the dropping shaft 16 to the support structure (not shown) of the eddy current damper 22” para 0033.
In reference to dependent claim 4, Maier in view of Price discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 2, Maier further teaches a centrifugal compressor wherein the plurality of sets of electromagnets (26a and 26b, fig 2) comprise a first electromagnet (26b) located directly below the brake component (24) of the rotor shaft (16) and a second electromagnet (26a) located directly above the brake component (24) of the rotor shaft (16) in a vertical direction (fig 2 shows the 26a vertically above the shaft and 26b), however
Maier and Price are silent to where when energized, the second electromagnet has a magnetic field intensity greater than that of the first electromagnet.
Maier does disclose accounting for the weight of the rotor with the power of the magnets (para 0033 discloses “the eddy current damper 22 may be turned on just prior to the drop, thereby transferring at least some of the force of the dropping shaft [the force of the dropping shaft is the weight of the rotor] 16 to the support structure (not shown) of the eddy current damper 22, allowing the eddy current damper 22 to act as a shock-absorber for the auxiliary bearing 20”). Maier discloses a system wherein the force of the electromagnets 26a and 26b can be used to counteract weight of the rotor. If the electromagnets on either side of the rotor are equal, the resultant force from the electromagnets would be equal and the rotor would fall due to its own weight in a drop event. Maier discloses a system wherein the top electromagnet must stronger in order to counter act the weight of the rotor. If the top electromagnet is too strong the resultant force would result in the rotor either not falling at all and remaining stationary or actually going up and hitting the rotor on the top side. The resultant force of the two electromagnets must counter act a portion but not all of the weight of the rotor. Therefore Maier discloses linking the power of the electromagnets to the weight of the rotor.
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the power of the magnets taught by Maier in view of Price because the power of the magnets was recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a particular offset force to counteract the gravity of the rotor and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the power of the magnets to achieve a desired level of support for the rotor. To be clear the second electromagnet (26a, fig 2 Maier) must be stronger than the first magnet because if it is not the electromagnets cancel each other out and the rotor falls, which is not what Maier discloses. Maier discloses above “transferring at least some of the force of the dropping shaft 16 to the support structure (not shown) of the eddy current damper 22” para 0033.
In reference to dependent claim 11, Maier in view of Price discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, Price further discloses a system wherein the sensor device (51) and the controller (30) form a cohesive system that dynamically adjusts the power supplied to the plurality of sets of electromagnets (electromagnets in the motor) based on real-time feedback of the rotor shaft's rotational speed and direction (col 9, lines 39-44 discloses “anti-rollback circuit 51 senses the polarity (i.e., direction) of the speed feedback signal from tachometer 20 and if that polarity is in the wrong direction for raising (i.e., is positive when it should, in fact, be negative to effect raising), the anti-rollback circuit 51 provides a signal at point 72”
col 14, lines 32-36 discloses “For a short period of time a larger braking command is produced to achieve slow-down, and then it will phase back and produce a smaller braking command necessary to maintain the speed of motor 10” to be clear the system uses the “direct current braking” while starting up, the load puts a downward force on the winch causing the motor to want to turn in a reverse direction in comparison to its intended direction, the system senses this and then uses powering the windings to brake the motor).
In reference to dependent claim 12, Maier in view of Price discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, Price discloses a device wherein the sensor device (51) determines the rotational speed and direction of the rotor shaft (shaft 11 of the motor) based on sequence and interval time of the signals (col 8, lines 38-44 disclose “The anti-rollback circuit 51 senses the polarity (i.e., direction) of the speed feedback signal from tachometer 20 and if that polarity is in the wrong direction for raising (i.e., is positive when it should, in fact, be negative to effect raising), the anti-rollback circuit 51 provides a signal at point 72”).
In reference to dependent claim 13, Maier in view of Price discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 12, Price discloses a device wherein the sensor device (51) determines the rotational speed and direction of the rotor shaft based on detecting changes in magnetic field strength at predefined intervals (col 2 lines 15-23 discloses “The control means further comprise emergency dynamic braking means operative in the event of failure of the electromechanical brake (caused by brake-lining wear, for example) while the motor and control are deenergized (caused by power outage or open safety switch, for example) but supporting a suspended load. A rectified feedback signal from the tachometer induces a magnetic field in the motor stator (primary) windings.”).
In reference to dependent claim 19, Maier in view of Price discloses the centrifugal compressor of claim 1, Price further discloses the controller (30) receives the signals from the sensor (51) device and supplies the power to the plurality of sets of electromagnets when the sensor device detects that the rotor shaft has a reversal trend (col 9, lines 39-44 discloses “anti-rollback circuit 51 senses the polarity (i.e., direction) of the speed feedback signal from tachometer 20 and if that polarity is in the wrong direction for raising (i.e., is positive when it should, in fact, be negative to effect raising), the anti-rollback circuit 51 provides a signal at point 72”
col 14, lines 32-36 discloses “For a short period of time a larger braking command is produced to achieve slow-down, and then it will phase back and produce a smaller braking command necessary to maintain the speed of motor 10” to be clear the system uses the “direct current braking” while starting up, the load puts a downward force on the winch causing the motor to want to turn in a reverse direction in comparison to its intended direction, the system senses this and then uses powering the windings to brake the motor, in the “reversal trend” case a failing of main power would cause the hoist to slow, which according to applicant’s specification, is “reversal trend”, then the braking system can activate col 2, lines 15-20 discloses “The control means further comprise emergency dynamic braking means operative in the event of failure of the electromechanical brake (caused by brake-lining wear, for example) while the motor and control are deenergized (caused by power outage or open safety switch, for example) but supporting a suspended load.” Examiner takes this to be functional language that the combination is capable of.).
In reference to dependent claim 20, Maier in view of Price discloses the centrifugal compressor of claim 1, Price further discloses wherein the controller (30) controls a magnetic field intensity of each of the plurality of sets of electromagnets by selectively controlling the power supplied to each of the plurality of sets of electromagnets between at least two different non-zero levels (col 4, lines 3-4 discloses “The motoring and braking command signals are d.c. signals (always positive) but varying in voltage level”, col 8 lines 27-34 discloses “The signal polarity thus determines whether the motor should brake or power. The signal magnitude determines the extent of braking or powering. Speed reference is low for low motor speed and high for high motor speed and typically varies from 0 to 10 volts positive”).
In reference to dependent claim 21, Maier in view of Price discloses the centrifugal compressor of claim 20, however
Maier and Price are silent to wherein the controller supplies more power to a second electromagnet of the plurality of sets of electromagnets than to a first electromagnet of the plurality of sets of electromagnets.
Maier does disclose accounting for the weight of the rotor with the power of the magnets (para 0033 discloses “the eddy current damper 22 may be turned on just prior to the drop, thereby transferring at least some of the force of the dropping shaft [the force of the dropping shaft is the weight of the rotor] 16 to the support structure (not shown) of the eddy current damper 22, allowing the eddy current damper 22 to act as a shock-absorber for the auxiliary bearing 20”). Maier discloses a system wherein the force of the electromagnets 26a and 26b can be used to counteract weight of the rotor. If the electromagnets on either side of the rotor are equal, the resultant force from the electromagnets would be equal and the rotor would fall due to its own weight in a drop event. Maier discloses a system wherein the top electromagnet must stronger in order to counter act the weight of the rotor. If the top electromagnet is too strong the resultant force would result in the rotor either not falling at all and remaining stationary or actually going up and hitting the rotor on the top side. The resultant force of the two electromagnets must counter act a portion but not all of the weight of the rotor. Therefore Maier discloses linking the power of the electromagnets to the weight of the rotor.
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05II(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the power of the magnets taught by Maier in view of Price because the power of the magnets was recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a particular offset force to counteract the gravity of the rotor and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the power of the magnets to achieve a desired level of support for the rotor. To be clear the second electromagnet (26a, fig 2 Maier) must be stronger than the first magnet because if it is not the electromagnets cancel each other out and the rotor falls, which is not what Maier discloses. Maier discloses above “transferring at least some of the force of the dropping shaft 16 to the support structure (not shown) of the eddy current damper 22” para 0033.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (USPAP 2012/0321439) in view of Price (USPN 4,030,007) in reference to claim 1 above, further in view of Park (USPN 6,286,637).
In reference to dependent claim 6, Maier in view of Price discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 2, Maier teaches a compressor wherein each electromagnet of the plurality of sets of electromagnets (26a and 26b, fig 2), the magnetic conductor comprising an arc-shaped section ( 26a and 26b, fig 2 are both arch shaped) and a first end portion and a second end portion extending towards the brake component (24) from both ends of the arc-shaped section (portions labeled N and S extend towards 24), and where when the electromagnet is energized the first end portion and the second end portion have opposite first and second polarities (N and S of 26a and 26b in fig 2 disclose opposite polarities), respectively; however
Maier and Price are silent to the electromagnet comprising a magnetic conductor and a coil winding, the coil winding being wound on the arc-shaped section.
Park, a similar eddy current brake system, teaches the electromagnet comprising a magnetic conductor (1, fig 4) and a coil winding (2), the coil winding being wound on the arc-shaped section (col 3, lines 63-64 discloses “the brake of this invention comprises a core 1, which is wound with a coil 2”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the winding method of Park in the compressor of Maier in view of Price “so as to form both a desired rotating speed and a desired density of magnetic flux” col 4, lines 11-12; Park. By using the coil winding method the magnetic flux can be very precisely controlled.
Claims 8, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (USPAP 2012/0321439) in view of Price (USPN 4,030,007) in reference to claim 1, and further in view of Conry (USPN 5,857,348).
In reference to dependent claim 8, Maier in view of Price discloses the teaches the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, Maier further discloses a centrifugal compressor wherein the brake component (24) is a brake disc connected to the rotor shaft (16), the brake disc is made of magnetic conductive material (para 0021 discloses “disk 24 may be made of a substantially non-ferrous, conductive material such as aluminum, copper, non-magnetic stainless steel, titanium, combinations thereof, alloys thereof, or like materials” para 0024 discloses “The magnets 26a,b may be disposed proximal the disk 24, i.e., close enough to magnetically engage the disk 24 along a radial outside 52 thereof.”), however
Maier and Price are silent to the centrifugal compressor further comprises an axial magnetic bearing assembly that restrains the rotor shaft axially, and radial magnetic bearing assemblies that supports the rotor shaft radially from both ends of the rotor shaft, where the axial magnetic bearing assembly, the radial magnetic bearing assemblies and the plurality of sets of electromagnets are each powered by a backup power supply in case of abnormal power outage.
Conry, a similar centrifugal compressor, teaches a centrifugal compressor further comprises an axial magnetic bearing assembly (26, fig 1) that restrains the rotor shaft (22) axially, and radial magnetic bearing assemblies (23 and 24, fig 1) that supports the rotor shaft radially from both ends of the rotor shaft (col 4, lines 13-18 discloses “The first and second stage impellers are mounted on opposite ends of a drive shaft 22 mounted for rotation in a pair of radial magnetic bearings 23 and 24. The shaft is driven by a brushless DC permanent magnet motor, and an axial electromagnetic bearing 26 is provided to counteract axial loadings on the shaft 22.”), where the axial magnetic bearing assembly (26), the radial magnetic bearing assemblies (23 and 24) and the plurality of sets of electromagnets are each powered by a backup power supply in case of abnormal power outage (col 4, lines 47-53 discloses “Compressor control system 30 incorporates power supply means in order to supply electrical power to the active magnetic bearings in the event that a system power outage occurs during operation of the compressor. Such power supply means may involve the use of the electric motor as a generator if power supply to the motor is cut or to use the bearing itself to generate a self-sustaining power supply.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bearings and power system of Conry in the compressor taught by Maier in view of Price “ to provide a compressor which is able to operate at very high efficiencies over a wide range of load” col 2, lines 27-28 and “to supply electrical power to the active magnetic bearings in the event that a system power outage” col 4, lines 48-49; Conry.
In reference to dependent claim 10, Maier in view of Price teaches the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, however
Maier and Price are silent to the compressor be part of a refrigeration system.
Conry, using a similar centrifugal compressor, teaches a refrigeration system (refrigerant circuit in fig 3) comprising a centrifugal compressor (fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compressor of Maier in view of Price and Dunbar in the refrigerant system as taught by Conry “to provide a compressor for air conditioning or refrigeration systems which is able to be manufactured relatively simply and economically in a variety of capacities” col 2, lines 32-53; Conry.
In reference to dependent claim 18, Maier in view of Price discloses the centrifugal compressor of claim 8, however
Maier, Price and Conry do not teach wherein the axial magnetic bearing assembly is positioned on a first side of the rotor shaft between a first radial magnetic bearing assembly of the plurality of radial magnetic bearing assemblies and a rotor on the rotor shaft, and wherein the sensor device and the brake component are positioned on a second side of the rotor shaft between a second radial magnetic bearing assembly of the plurality of radial magnetic bearing assemblies and the rotor, the first side being opposite the second side.
It would be an obvious matter of design choice to one of skill in the art, at the time of invention, to align the devices on the shaft in the claimed order, since applicant has not disclosed that different arrangements solve any stated problems or are for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different arrangements. Furthermore, the applicant discloses in para 0028 that “the axial positions of the respective devices can be interchanged or changed if practical”.
Claim 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (USPAP 2012/0321439) in view of Price (USPN 4,030,007) in reference to claim 1 above, Dunbar (USPAP 2016/0054351) further in view of Nelson (USPAP 2013/0023848).
In reference to dependent claim 9, Maier in view of Price teaches the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1, Price discloses wherein the controller (30) determines whether the rotor shaft (shaft 11 of the motor) is rotating reversely or has a reversal trend and supplies power to the plurality of sets of electromagnets based on the signals. (col 9, lines 39-44 discloses “anti-rollback circuit 51 senses the polarity (i.e., direction) of the speed feedback signal from tachometer 20 and if that polarity is in the wrong direction for raising (i.e., is positive when it should, in fact, be negative to effect raising), the anti-rollback circuit 51 provides a signal at point 72”
col 14, lines 32-36 discloses “For a short period of time a larger braking command is produced to achieve slow-down, and then it will phase back and produce a smaller braking command necessary to maintain the speed of motor 10” to be clear the system uses the “direct current braking” while starting up, the load puts a downward force on the winch causing the motor to want to turn in a reverse direction in comparison to its intended direction, the system senses this and then uses powering the windings to brake the motor, in the “reversal trend” case a failing of main power would cause the hoist to slow, which according to applicant’s specification, is “reversal trend”, then the braking system can activate col 2, lines 15-20 discloses “The control means further comprise emergency dynamic braking means operative in the event of failure of the electromechanical brake (caused by brake-lining wear, for example) while the motor and control are deenergized (caused by power outage or open safety switch, for example) but supporting a suspended load.” Examiner takes this to be functional language that the combination is capable of.).
Maier and Price do not teach the device wherein the sensor device comprises two proximity sensors arranged at radial outward locations of the rotor shaft at the same axial position, at an interval in a circumferential direction while detectable features are provided at the axial position corresponding to the proximity sensors on the rotor shaft, where the controller determines whether the rotor shaft is rotating reversely or has a reversal trend based on sequence and interval time of signals sent by the two proximity sensors.
Dunbar, a similar shaft sensor, teaches the device wherein the sensor device comprises two proximity sensors (20 and 30) arranged at radial outward locations of the rotor shaft (15, seen in fig 1) at the same axial position, at an interval in a circumferential direction while detectable features are provided at the axial position corresponding to the proximity sensors on the rotor shaft (in this case teeth), where the controller determines whether the rotor shaft is rotating reversely or has a reversal trend based on sequence and interval time of signals sent by the two proximity sensors (para 0017 discloses “The first and second sensing devices 20, 30 are employed to detect position, speed and rotational direction of the rotatable member 15.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the position sensor of Dunbar in the compressor of Maier in view of Price to provide “detection of a non-rotating rotatable member 15 when pulse waveforms from one of the rotational monitoring sensors are corrupted due to vibration and/or lash during zero speed operation, while also allowing normal speed and position calculation as the rotatable member 15 begins to accelerate from zero speed” para 0040; Dunbar
Nelson, a rotation controller for a fluid moving device, teaches the sensor device comprises two proximity sensors (66 and 68, fig 1) arranged at radial outward of the rotor shaft at the same axial position (66 and 68 are in the same rotational plane), at an interval in a circumferential direction while detectable features (magnets on 44) are provided at the axial position corresponding to the proximity sensors on the rotor shaft (46), where the controller (50) determines whether the rotor shaft is rotating reversely or has a reversal trend based on sequence and interval time of signals sent by the two proximity sensors (66 and 68), and supplies power to the plurality of sets of electromagnets (after modification holding is done with the electromagnets) when the rotor shaft is rotating reversely (abstract discloses “the system monitors for reverse rotation of the pump, and if reverse rotation of the pump is detected, energizes the coil in a manner that holds the rotor in place”) or has a reversal trend.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reverse rotation method of Nelson in the centrifugal compressor as taught by Maier in view of Price and Dunbar to “make energy efficient use of a motor to prevent reverse rotation” para 0005, Nelson.
In reference to dependent claim 17, Maier in view of Price, Dunbar and Nelson discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 9, Dunbar discloses a device wherein the sensor device (20 and 30) comprises the two proximity sensors selected from Hall sensors (para 0016 discloses “The first and second sensing devices 20, 30 are Hall-effect sensors in one embodiment, each including a magnet source that generates magnetic flux when interacting with individual teeth 12 of the multi-tooth target wheel 10.”), optical sensors, or magnetic sensors.
Claims 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (USPAP 2012/0321439) in view of Price (USPN 4,030,007)
further in view of Dunbar (USPAP 2016/0054351).
In reference to dependent claim 14, Maier in view of Price teaches the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1,
Maier and Price do not teach wherein the sensor device comprises two proximity sensors arranged at the radial outward locations of the rotor shaft at the same axial position, at an interval of 90 degrees in a circumferential direction
Dunbar, a similar shaft sensor, teaches a device wherein the sensor device (20 and 30, fig 1) comprises two proximity sensors (20 and 30, fig 1) arranged at the radial outward locations of the rotor shaft (15) at the same axial position (fig 1 shows the sensors at the same axial position), at an interval of 90 degrees in a circumferential direction (para 0017 discloses “The first and second sensing devices 20, 30 are physically arranged with an angular offset from each other with respect to an axis of rotation and corresponding center of the associated rotatable member 15 such that monitoring by the second sensing device 30 is offset by 90° ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the position sensor of Dunbar in the compressor of Maier in view of Park to provide “detection of a non-rotating rotatable member 15 when pulse waveforms from one of the rotational monitoring sensors are corrupted due to vibration and/or lash during zero speed operation, while also allowing normal speed and position calculation as the rotatable member 15 begins to accelerate from zero speed” para 0040; Dunbar. To be clear the modification is done by adding the speed sensing method to the primary referent to increase accuracy and reliability.
In reference to dependent claim 15, Maier in view of Price discloses the centrifugal compressor according to claim 1,
Maier and Price do not teach wherein the rotor shaft includes detectable features at axial positions corresponding to proximity sensors of the sensor device, the detectable features comprising at least one of: grooves, optical reflectors, or magnets
Dunbar, a similar shaft sensor, teaches a device wherein the rotor shaft (15) includes detectable features (teeth 12) at axial positions corresponding to proximity sensors (20 and 30) of the sensor device, the detectable features comprising at least one of: grooves, optical reflectors, or magnets (para 0016 discloses “The first and second sensing devices 20, 30 are Hall-effect sensors in one embodiment, each including a magnet source that generates magnetic flux when interacting with individual teeth 12 of the multi-tooth target wheel 10.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the position sensor of Dunbar in the compressor of Maier in view of Park to provide “detection of a non-rotating rotatable member 15 when pulse waveforms from one of the rotational monitoring sensors are corrupted due to vibration and/or lash during zero speed operation, while also allowing normal speed and position calculation as the rotatable member 15 begins to accelerate from zero speed” para 0040; Dunbar. To be clear the modification is done by adding the speed sensing method to the primary referent to increase accuracy and reliability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/18/2023 have been considered but, unless otherwise addressed below, are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES W NICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)272-6492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571) 270-5246. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.W.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783